Transcriptomic analysis implicates ABA signaling and carbon supply in the differential outgrowth of petunia axillary buds.
Abscisic acid
Axillary buds
Branching
Bud dormancy
Phosphate
Strigolactones
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Oct 2023
10 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
24
07
2023
accepted:
03
10
2023
medline:
2
11
2023
pubmed:
10
10
2023
entrez:
9
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Shoot branching of flowering plants exhibits phenotypic plasticity and variability. This plasticity is determined by the activity of axillary meristems, which in turn is influenced by endogenous and exogenous cues such as nutrients and light. In many species, not all buds on the main shoot develop into branches despite favorable growing conditions. In petunia, basal axillary buds (buds 1-3) typically do not grow out to form branches, while more apical axillary buds (buds 6 and 7) are competent to grow. The genetic regulation of buds was explored using transcriptome analyses of petunia axillary buds at different positions on the main stem. To suppress or promote bud outgrowth, we grew the plants in media with differing phosphate (P) levels. Using RNA-seq, we found many (> 5000) differentially expressed genes between bud 6 or 7, and bud 2. In addition, more genes were differentially expressed when we transferred the plants from low P to high P medium, compared with shifting from high P to low P medium. Buds 6 and 7 had increased transcript abundance of cytokinin and auxin-related genes, whereas the basal non-growing buds (bud 2 and to a lesser extent bud 3) had higher expression of strigolactone, abscisic acid, and dormancy-related genes, suggesting the outgrowth of these basal buds was actively suppressed. Consistent with this, the expression of ABA associated genes decreased significantly in apical buds after stimulating growth by switching the medium from low P to high P. Furthermore, comparisons between our data and transcriptome data from other species suggest that the suppression of outgrowth of bud 2 was correlated with a limited supply of carbon to these axillary buds. Candidate genes that might repress bud outgrowth were identified by co-expression analysis. Plants need to balance growth of axillary buds into branches to fit with available resources while allowing some buds to remain dormant to grow after the loss of plant parts or in response to a change in environmental conditions. Here we demonstrate that different buds on the same plant with different developmental potentials have quite different transcriptome profiles.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Shoot branching of flowering plants exhibits phenotypic plasticity and variability. This plasticity is determined by the activity of axillary meristems, which in turn is influenced by endogenous and exogenous cues such as nutrients and light. In many species, not all buds on the main shoot develop into branches despite favorable growing conditions. In petunia, basal axillary buds (buds 1-3) typically do not grow out to form branches, while more apical axillary buds (buds 6 and 7) are competent to grow.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The genetic regulation of buds was explored using transcriptome analyses of petunia axillary buds at different positions on the main stem. To suppress or promote bud outgrowth, we grew the plants in media with differing phosphate (P) levels. Using RNA-seq, we found many (> 5000) differentially expressed genes between bud 6 or 7, and bud 2. In addition, more genes were differentially expressed when we transferred the plants from low P to high P medium, compared with shifting from high P to low P medium. Buds 6 and 7 had increased transcript abundance of cytokinin and auxin-related genes, whereas the basal non-growing buds (bud 2 and to a lesser extent bud 3) had higher expression of strigolactone, abscisic acid, and dormancy-related genes, suggesting the outgrowth of these basal buds was actively suppressed. Consistent with this, the expression of ABA associated genes decreased significantly in apical buds after stimulating growth by switching the medium from low P to high P. Furthermore, comparisons between our data and transcriptome data from other species suggest that the suppression of outgrowth of bud 2 was correlated with a limited supply of carbon to these axillary buds. Candidate genes that might repress bud outgrowth were identified by co-expression analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Plants need to balance growth of axillary buds into branches to fit with available resources while allowing some buds to remain dormant to grow after the loss of plant parts or in response to a change in environmental conditions. Here we demonstrate that different buds on the same plant with different developmental potentials have quite different transcriptome profiles.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37814235
doi: 10.1186/s12870-023-04505-3
pii: 10.1186/s12870-023-04505-3
pmc: PMC10563266
doi:
Substances chimiques
Plant Growth Regulators
0
Cytokinins
0
Indoleacetic Acids
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
482Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012 Feb;1819(2):104-19
pubmed: 22033015
Nature. 2013 Dec 19;504(7480):406-10
pubmed: 24336215
Biostatistics. 2017 Apr 1;18(2):275-294
pubmed: 27756721
Plant J. 2017 Nov;92(4):611-623
pubmed: 28869799
Plant Physiol. 2015 Jun;168(2):735-51
pubmed: 25911529
Plant Cell Physiol. 2013 Nov;54(11):1881-93
pubmed: 24058148
Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7815):277-281
pubmed: 32528176
New Phytol. 2020 Jul;227(1):99-115
pubmed: 32022273
Plant Physiol. 2007 Jan;143(1):156-71
pubmed: 17085508
J Exp Bot. 2018 Jul 18;69(16):3883-3898
pubmed: 29982677
Plant J. 2021 Jan;105(2):335-350
pubmed: 33118266
Plant Physiol. 2016 Feb;170(2):1060-74
pubmed: 26644503
Nature. 2007 Aug 23;448(7156):938-42
pubmed: 17671505
New Phytol. 2017 Jul;215(2):545-551
pubmed: 27883193
Plant J. 2022 Jul;111(1):269-281
pubmed: 35506310
Plant Physiol. 2023 May 31;192(2):1420-1434
pubmed: 36690819
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Oct 31;8:1874
pubmed: 29163599
Trends Plant Sci. 2019 Mar;24(3):220-236
pubmed: 30797425
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 22;111(16):6092-7
pubmed: 24711430
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2015;66:161-86
pubmed: 25621512
Plant Sci. 2018 Dec;277:33-42
pubmed: 30466598
J Exp Bot. 2014 Mar;65(3):799-807
pubmed: 24453229
J Exp Bot. 2022 Apr 5;73(7):2061-2076
pubmed: 35022731
Nature. 2008 Sep 11;455(7210):195-200
pubmed: 18690207
Plant Physiol. 2014 Jun 5;165(4):1723-1736
pubmed: 24904042
Development. 2018 Feb 27;145(4):
pubmed: 29487105
Plant J. 2021 Sep;107(6):1756-1770
pubmed: 34245626
Plant Cell Environ. 2014 Mar;37(3):742-57
pubmed: 23992149
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2018 Feb;41:102-109
pubmed: 29125947
New Phytol. 2020 Jan;225(2):866-879
pubmed: 31529696
Plant J. 2007 Sep;51(6):1019-29
pubmed: 17655651
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2014 Feb;17:28-35
pubmed: 24507491
Sci Rep. 2016 Nov 08;6:35955
pubmed: 27824063
Front Plant Sci. 2017 May 23;8:788
pubmed: 28588590
Genes Dev. 2003 Jun 15;17(12):1469-74
pubmed: 12815068
Mol Plant. 2020 Aug 3;13(8):1194-1202
pubmed: 32585190
Ann Bot. 2011 May;107(7):1203-12
pubmed: 21504914
Plant Cell Rep. 2021 Jul;40(7):1071-1085
pubmed: 33860345
Plant Cell Physiol. 2004 Aug;45(8):1053-62
pubmed: 15356331
Nat Plants. 2016 May 27;2(6):16074
pubmed: 27255838
Plant Cell. 2020 Jun;32(6):1973-1987
pubmed: 32265265
New Phytol. 2022 Mar;233(5):2111-2126
pubmed: 34907541
Plant Cell. 2004 Oct;16(10):2683-92
pubmed: 15377755
New Phytol. 2021 Aug;231(3):1088-1104
pubmed: 33909299
New Phytol. 2012 Oct;196(2):535-547
pubmed: 22924438
Plant Cell Environ. 2015 Aug;38(8):1471-8
pubmed: 25496467
Funct Plant Biol. 2003 Oct;30(9):987-994
pubmed: 32689083
Plant Physiol. 2011 Jul;156(3):1620-30
pubmed: 21543728
J Plant Res. 2006 Mar;119(2):115-23
pubmed: 16463203
Bioinformatics. 2016 Oct 1;32(19):3047-8
pubmed: 27312411
Front Microbiol. 2013 Sep 03;4:248
pubmed: 24058359
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2015 Jun;25:39-45
pubmed: 25938609
Plant Cell Physiol. 2022 Jun 15;63(6):869-881
pubmed: 35353884
J Exp Bot. 2020 Jul 25;71(15):4415-4427
pubmed: 32279073
Plant Cell. 2015 Nov;27(11):3128-42
pubmed: 26546446
Nature. 2009 Jun 25;459(7250):1136-40
pubmed: 19506555
Development. 2017 May 1;144(9):1661-1673
pubmed: 28289131
Plant Physiol. 2003 Nov;133(3):1407-15
pubmed: 14576281
Plant Signal Behav. 2014;9(2):e27994
pubmed: 24518068
Plant Physiol. 2011 Jul;156(3):1116-30
pubmed: 21346170
Plant Physiol. 2008 Sep;148(1):6-24
pubmed: 18772351
Plant J. 2001 Jun;26(5):487-94
pubmed: 11439135
BMC Plant Biol. 2012 Oct 05;12:181
pubmed: 23035802
Front Plant Sci. 2020 Nov 17;11:604489
pubmed: 33329676
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jan 10;114(2):E245-E254
pubmed: 28028241
BMC Bioinformatics. 2008 Dec 29;9:559
pubmed: 19114008
Nature. 2008 Sep 11;455(7210):189-94
pubmed: 18690209
New Phytol. 2010 Jul;187(2):343-354
pubmed: 20487312
Plant Cell. 2005 Mar;17(3):746-59
pubmed: 15705953
Plant Mol Biol. 2007 Apr;63(6):731-44
pubmed: 17351828
Plants (Basel). 2014 Apr 23;3(2):223-50
pubmed: 27135502
Nat Methods. 2017 Apr;14(4):417-419
pubmed: 28263959
Front Plant Sci. 2014 Jul 17;5:353
pubmed: 25101105
Cell Res. 2017 Sep;27(9):1128-1141
pubmed: 28809396
Plant Cell. 2017 Jun;29(6):1373-1387
pubmed: 28576845
J Exp Bot. 2009;60(7):2179-90
pubmed: 19380421
Plant Physiol. 2015 Sep;169(1):611-26
pubmed: 26149576
Plant J. 2019 Mar;97(6):1006-1021
pubmed: 30740793
Curr Biol. 2012 Nov 6;22(21):2032-6
pubmed: 22959345
J Exp Bot. 2015 May;66(9):2569-82
pubmed: 25873679
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Feb 12;10:76
pubmed: 30809235
Plant Physiol. 2018 Feb;176(2):1171-1181
pubmed: 29203560
Front Plant Sci. 2015 Jan 13;5:741
pubmed: 25628627
Plant Cell. 2003 Nov;15(11):2532-50
pubmed: 14555694
Plant Physiol. 2021 Nov 3;187(3):1033-1044
pubmed: 33616657
Plant Cell Physiol. 2010 Jul;51(7):1118-26
pubmed: 20542891